×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Doctors Back Circumcision

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the yep-we're-going-there dept.

Medicine 1264

ananyo writes "On 27 August, a report by the American Academy of Pediatrics concludes for the first time that, overall, boys will be healthier if circumcised. The report says that although the choice is ultimately up to parents, medical insurance should pay for the procedure. The recommendation, coming from such an influential body, could boost U.S. circumcision rates, which, at 55%, are already higher than much of the developed world. The researchers estimate that each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1264 comments

Penises. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158081)

Hey, just a thought here. Can we leave penis news off of Slashdot?! Unless it's about the latest "upgrade" I think a vast majority of us don't care.

Seriously.

Lies (0, Flamebait)

sexconker (1179573) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158083)

Lies and nonsense designed to prop up the > $240,000,000 per year industry that has been gradually waning.

Re:Lies (0, Troll)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158189)

Gah, another one. "Take away your studies and facts, I'm not listening, la la la la, I can't hear you..."

Re:Lies (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158373)

Pediatrics - Only concerned with the health of kids, not adults.

You may be physically healthier, on average, without your foreskin. Only if you're not taught about how to properly take care of it. (So the data, framed in this way, will say that circumcised boys are healthier because improperly cared for un-circumcised boys)

The real problem is a social phobia about teaching little boys how they are supposed to wash and care for their penis. Instead, we just cut off the foreskin so we don't have to deal with it. Touching your "penis" is bad, after all.

Later in life it leads to abnormal masturbation, reduced sexual pleasure, and reduced pleasure of your female partner. - This study conveniently ignores these issues because they're not about children.

Re:Lies (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158587)

The article is also very light on numbers. It mentions a reduction in STIs and whatnot, but provides absolutely no quantitative data. How much are these infections and disorders decreased by? Are we talking a couple percentage points? Or dozens of percentage points? Furthermore, I don't see any definitive causes described. What I see is a correlation with some hypothesizing as to the cause but nothing which has actually been verified by scientific inquiry.

Re:Lies (1, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158461)

Oh, look, another person rationalizing a completely unnecessary and potentially dangerous medical fad started by crackpots obsessed with masturbation by cherry-picking a comment that is a bit loony.

Re:Lies (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158555)

It depends on whom's facts you read:

The British Medical Association said it had no policy on the issue because of the “absence of unambiguously clear and consistent medical data on the implications of the intervention."

As far as I'm concerned if the evidence is so ambiguous after all this time then there's no necessity for the operation. Look at it this way if it prevents the spread of HIV then why is the infection level in the UK a third of that in the US in percentage terms yet circumcision in the UK is very tiny.

Re:Lies (5, Funny)

pdabbadabba (720526) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158201)

Yes, because we all know that the American Academy of Pediatrics is in the pocket of Big Circumcision.

Re:Lies (1, Informative)

zixxt (1547061) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158299)

What are the lies?

Circumcision become the norm in the US after it was found out that the rates of penile cancer among Jewish men were zero. And now we know that men
that are circumcised are less likely to infect and become infected with STDs. So again what are the lies?

Re:Lies (-1, Flamebait)

euxneks (516538) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158429)

US after it was found out that the rates of penile cancer among Jewish men were zero

Why not just cut the whole thing off then? Also, please provide source that this is a causal relationship.

Re:Lies (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158481)

Just because there isn't a proven causal relationship, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

More to the point... has circumcision ever been shown to be linked to something harmful?

Re:Lies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158583)

Never took statistics did you?

Re:Lies (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158447)

I bet the rates of communicable diseases are even lower if we chop off the entire dick, so why not do that?

Can you fucking IMAGINE the outrage if we were pushing for female genital mutilation and justifying by "well there's a tiny bit of possible decrease in risk of some things you won't have to worry about if you're careful in the first place, anyway"?

I'm circumcised and I'm not one of those morons going around spending the rest of my life crying about it, because who really fucking gives a shit? But still, it just seems god damn fucking retarded to push for circumcision under any justification and I don't get why people are trying SO DAMN HARD to make it okay.

Re:Lies (5, Informative)

nattt (568106) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158483)

Penile cancer rates are not zero among circumcised and it's such a none issue as it's also incredibly rare among the un-circumcised too. The recent HIV studies are very poor, and quite frankly, bad science (the circed men were given condoms and extra counciling the others did not, and the study was cut short, thus skewing the data as there was a good period where the circed men had to heal up before engaging in sexual activity).

Re:Lies (0)

SeeSchloss (886510) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158491)

Yeah well, mandatory ablation of the testicles and prostate at birth would prevent a LOT of cancers. Now is that really a good idea, though?

Circumcision (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158087)

The US has a health care system? This is news to me.

Re:Circumcision (1, Informative)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158549)

The US has a health care system? This is news to me.

The US has lots of health-care systems, including some that are funded by The federal government. In fact, we are going broke in part because of those programs. We also have quite a few great docs and medical centers. If you are sick and your insurance is good enough (or you are wealthy enough, or the doc is also nice), and you know how to find the right doc, it is some of the best care in the world.

We also have bad medical care, on a par with or below what most Canadians get, for example, in a lot of our Podunk hospitals. (Their fedgov has just dropped the ball on a huge portion of the bill for health, so the delay times are going to get even longer).

What we lack is complete coverage of the population, coverage that makes it possible to be a rational economic actor, or good preventative care. We also have a really phenomenally stupid way of coupling health care to employment.

I call BS (5, Insightful)

csb (23046) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158089)

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

Re:I call BS (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158157)

Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?

Probably "oh wait, they don't have penises."

Re:I call BS (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158185)

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

Paid for by the "Protect the Appendix" campaign.
Also; evolution doesn't make anything; it just ends up in some not-too-harmful-before-reproductive-age way after lots of mutations.
Not advocating circumcission, just saying that medical decission should be based on reality, not assumption or belief.

The appendix is not useless (5, Informative)

Chemisor (97276) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158573)

> Paid for by the "Protect the Appendix" campaign.

Educate yourself: the appendix serves as a haven for useful bacteria [wikipedia.org] when illness flushes those bacteria from the rest of the intestines, and thereby helps maintain normal intestinal flora.

Re:I call BS (5, Insightful)

DJRumpy (1345787) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158187)

Can't agree more. Never understood why parents feel the need to disfigure their children with no input from the child is beyond me. This should be something that an adult decides for his own reasons, not something to be decided for him.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158567)

Two obvious reasons spring to mind:

(1) alleged health benefits. Not entirely dissimilar to the alleged health benefits of vaccination.
(2) Religious values of the parents.

Re:I call BS (-1, Redundant)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158609)

Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin. Most of the women I've talked to about it say they find foreskins to be "ooky" anyways, particularly the ones that enjoy fellatio.

But of course this is just one mans opinion, and those of his partners over the years.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158225)

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.

You sound like a Creationist. Our body has a lot of processes, instincts and even organs that are in no way useful to us modern humans. The head of the penis is mushroom shaped so that it will suck out any other semen already present. There is no "good reason" for it to still be that way, but it is. The same is true of foreskin. It might have been an evolutionary advantage once, but in the modern world it's more of a liability than a benefit.

This isn't some religious dogma, it's a recommendation from experts based on the available evidence. How people react doesn't change the facts.

Re:I call BS (5, Insightful)

guises (2423402) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158251)

I am also skeptical, though I'm not sure about claiming natural = good. First of all, a savings of US$313 over the life of the patient is trivial given the current US health care system. Really really trivial - I hope they factored the cost of getting the circumcision into that, because that procedure alone is likely to cost double that amount.

Second, they're citing the African trials again as evidence for this, which... Why would they do that? Those trials took place in some of the poorest parts of Africa, they say nothing about efficacy of circumcision in places were soap is abundant. If there's so much debate around this issue, why don't they just do some trials here in the US?

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158281)

What if some did decades long studies and found that the health benefits outweighed outweighed the problem, a stance also taken by the World Health Organization?

I dunno, we'd probably start doing it. Sounds different when you look at the reasoning and not a completely unrelated matter. Male circumcision is done for hygienic reasons, female to try to impose social beliefs by force, but I assume you know that.

Re:I call BS (0, Troll)

slapyslapslap (995769) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158317)

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them. Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction? Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

Except maybe there isn't a very good reason to have one. At least one that's better than the reason to remove it. There is likely a very good reason ancient cultures with a huge emphasis on cleanliness adopted the practice and codified it into their religions...probably much of the same reasons these doctors are touting.

Re:I call BS (4, Funny)

Exitar (809068) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158541)

Right, and we should not have premarital sex, don't drink alcohol and don't eat pork, beef or shellfish.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158333)

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.

I believe it's primarily for increasing the chance of conception by your sperm in a multiple male situation; the foreskin together with the penis acts as a pump to remove already present sperm. (We also have slightly increased sperm production to deal with the same situation; compare a human to a gorilla and a bonobo chimpanzee, and you'll see that the gorilla - which is monogamous - has smaller testes, and the bonobo - which is very promiscuous - has larger.)

Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

I concur with this. The only country where there is a conclusion that circumcision is beneficial is the US; and that, incidentally, is the place where it's been practiced all along.

dunno about you... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158359)

but when I have an erection the foreskin is stretched tight. I don't see how it can possibly cause any pumping action to remove sperm.

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158339)

Well said Mr. uninformed reactionary. After all, we aren't meant to travel faster than 60 MPH without mysteriously dying and we weren't meant to fly either. What harm is there in making something better surgically instead of waiting for evolution to do it?

Re:I call BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158399)

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

There's no evidence that we were 'made'. We evolved, and there are many aspects of our biology that are not advantageous. Evolution isn't a designer. It's not aiming for a perfect design, or any design at all. It seems wrong-headed to start with the assumption of a design, so that everything without a fully understood purpose is attributed to some function we haven't discovered.

I grant that this assumption, though wrong, leads to more conservative medicine that might be more ethically tenable - but I think we can make intelligent decisions about health without resorting to intelligent design nonsense.

Re:I call BS (2)

tibit (1762298) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158427)

The problem is that while their findings are true, they don't universally apply. One can control STDs simply by, you know, keeping one partner and having him/her tested before you starting making out. That one's easy, and deletes most of the benefit. The lower rate of urinary tract infections and penile cancer is the only leftover benefit then. It's such a small change in UTIs that it's not clear that lifestyle changes alone won't have a way bigger effect. I'd think fluid intake and timely urination would help, as would making sure you go pee right after having sex (and drink fluids beforehand). As for penile cancer, I'd want to see that dissected a bit more to make sure there are no lifestyle changes that would improve one's chances there as well.

All in all -- yes, if you average on a big population that has varied habits and takes what amounts to STD risks, then sure, circumcision helps. For those of us who are otherwise sane, I don't think it helps at all, or at least the benefit is so small as to be hard to measure. Basically the average hides the fact that individual subjects have a lot of control over their health, and circumcision basically helps when you do stupid shit. That's nice and all, but I think it's not enough to convince me that infant boys are to be circumcised. I'll tell my son as he grows up about this study, and any follow-up studies sure to come out by then, and it'll be his decision -- if he'll decide to be a ladies' man, it'll probably make sense.

Re:I call BS (0, Flamebait)

neonv (803374) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158495)

There's always someone on Slashdot that wants to ignore the facts ... perhaps we should stop immunizations because "We were made this way for very good reasons"

Re:I call BS (0)

Hatta (162192) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158497)

I am strongly opposed to circumcision, and I can't agree with you there. If you're going to do it, do it when they are young and their nervous system is highly plastic. Children can rewire their nervous system, so they'll never miss the missing nerve endings. Adults don't have that ability.

Personally, I think a 50% lower risk of HIV is a bad reason for circumcision when condoms are over 90% effective, with much less risk of disaster. But if you're going to have it done, do it early.

Re:I call BS (-1)

spirit_fingers (777604) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158547)

We were made this way for very good reasons, even if we don't understand them.
Imagine if somebody proposed the same thing for female infants. What would be the reaction?
Leave all minors alone. Let them decide when they turn 18.

Mother Nature also made us naked, hence the need for a protective foreskin. But, like the appendix, the foreskin has become obsolete. We're better off with it off.

Re:I call BS (0)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158565)

If you want to leave your body the way it is because it was made that way for a good reason, then leave your appendix in when and if it goes bad. Don't cut cancer out if you get it. Oh sorry, this is something that can prevent disease instead of reacting to it. I guess that makes all the world of difference. Or does only scientific and statistical proof of global warming get your nod of approval. Personal belief is frowned upon in that regard, so why not in this populist new age feel good trend regard. Because it goes against your personal belief? I call BS against you for thinking that a move that has significant statistical proof at preventing serious diseases, including AIDS should be discouraged. I don't think I need to provide links. The links to the study in the article should be good enough. Please, if you want to demonstrate Darwinian actions, do it on your own and don't encourage others to join you.

Re:I call BS (2, Interesting)

WilliamGeorge (816305) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158617)

"We were made this way for very good reasons..."? Wow, I love to see the Slashdot community getting behind Intelligent Design!

Seriously, though, I love to see it when our limited scientific abilities back up what I believe. God instructed the use of circumcision, and it turns out not only to be a way to obey Him but also to be beneficial. Perhaps He designed humans in this way just so that we would have something like this, as a way we can show obedience to him without any negative side effects (and, in fact, beneficial ones!).

Use doctors, not mohels (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158097)

Mohels are supposed to suck any blood that drips from the cut penis.

Doctors use modern medical techniques to keep the area sterile.

Do you want an old guy sucking on your son's dick?

Use a doctor for your son's circumcision.

now that's very cutting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158111)

;)

$313? (3, Insightful)

Milharis (2523940) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158121)

Is that over the price of doing the surgery?
Because from what I could find, it's in the 2-3k range; so if you have to pay $2000 to save $313, that might not be the best idea.

Re:$313? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158265)

The cost of this when done to an infant is pretty small. A few dabs of cream to deaden the area, and the installation of two rings that snap together followed by a quick run around the rings with a sharp edge. Wait for the rings to fall off and it's over. No way it costs $2K, maybe $500 us or so (malpractice insurance premium included).

Re:$313? (1)

Talennor (612270) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158309)

Report linked stated cost to be "$216-601 across the nation." But they weren't using dollar amounts as the results to maximize, rather quality of life.

However, it appears to be a very small average (average is important in this discussion) quality of life improvement. And this is something, if I were becoming a parent soon, I wouldn't worry much. There's important decisions like saying "yes" to vaccinations that matter much more.

Re:$313? (2)

Marc_Hawke (130338) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158335)

The report say that it cost between $216 and $601 for a newborn circumcision. I couldn't find the number $313 cost 'savings' anywhere in the report itself. It seems it comes from article that talked about it.

I scanned the report, and it talked about a lot of different health problems, but it didn't seem to quantify them monetarily.

Re:$313? (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158513)

From what I can tell, it's around $150 to have it done on an infant in the hospital. Whether or not the $313 number had that factored in (i.e. $463 - $150 = $313) or not (i.e. $313 - $150 = $163) is something I don't know, but either way, the monetary savings appears to be rather minimal, since I believe that the number is supposed to be over the course of their lifetime, not per year. If we assume that males in the US will live for an average of 80 years, that works out to a cost of around $4/year to go uncircumcised.

Severs artery, causes impotence. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158125)

Circumcision severs the artery along the top of the penis, thus causing the most frequent complication of excessive bleeding, and later in life lack of blood flow and impotence.

Given all the Viagra, counseling, loss of pleasure and discomfort, the cost of circumcision is a _great_deal_ more than $313.

Another benefit (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158133)

Circumcision ensures that males won't become slaves to their women.

Uncircumcised men suffer an overwhelming psychological adjustment in response to their first orgasm, which is basically a move from basically no stimulation to overwhelming stimulation in one shot. It creates a deep-seated psychological addiction to femininity, which drives them to spend the rest of their lives sacrificing whatever their women demand in order to get their fix.

Cricumcised men, however, have mild but constant stimulation basically all the time (since they wear clothing that rubs against the sensitive bit as they walk and so on), so their first orgasm isn't nearly as overwhelming, and so the addiction is not nearly so strong, and so the men retain a much greater portion of their independent will after the experience.

No, I don't have a citation. Because I just made all this up. Ha ha, you read it!

mutilate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158135)

I want my forskin back. They had no right to take it.

Jesus. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158149)

Just practice good hygiene. How about we don't mutilate anyone's private parts against their will?

Re:Jesus. (-1, Troll)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158267)

Just practice good hygiene. How about we don't mutilate anyone's private parts against their will?

Yea! And if your kid is born with a hair-lip, don't you dare mutilate that poor child by making him look like everyone else!

Childhood cancer? Too fuckin' bad, chief, we ain't torturing your kid by cutting out that perfectly natural tumor!

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick, the ignorant shit some people expound...

Re:Jesus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158315)

Yes, the ignorant shit some people expound...

Re:Jesus. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158409)

Well no, actually the one posting "ignorant shit" is you, penile cancer is an extremely uncommon form of cancer compared to all the ones that you can get and yet we don't start cutting away all the body parts that could possibly develop a tumor. So yes, please leave my foreskin the fuck alone, I'm perfectly happy with it! If you're really so worried you can just wait until someone is older and can decide for himself, the already small chance of penile cancer will be negligible in babies and young boys (they'll have more problems from being in the same room with smoking parents or being too long outside in the sun) so there's no rush.

Re:Jesus. (1)

gnoshi (314933) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158443)

Yea! And if your kid is born with a hair-lip, don't you dare mutilate that poor child by making him look like everyone else!

Childhood cancer? Too fuckin' bad, chief, we ain't torturing your kid by cutting out that perfectly natural tumor!

Ordinarily, males are born with a foreskin, so it is entirely unlike a hair-lip (indeed it would be more like a hair lip to be born without a foreskin). The increased risk of illness as a result of having one is clearly marginal, which is unlike the childhood cancer. However, you have produced two great examples of why analogy often fails as a reasoning tool.

Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo-stick, the ignorant shit some people expound...

Some people being you in this instance.

Re:Jesus. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158479)

Absurd analogy. Last I checked, you couldn't scrub cancer away with good hygiene.

The problem i see here... (4, Insightful)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158151)

...is that they harp on the issues of UTIs and STDs/STIs. Those are things that are easily avoidable, and not at all the fault of having a foreskin. If baby gets a UTI, mommy and daddy need to do a better job cleaning baby up and cleaning baby sooner. If, as a man, the person has issues with STDs/STIs, well gee stop being a moron having unprotected/risky sex Einstein.

Trying to lump the added medical costs is the same. The costs brought on are not due to the foreskin, they are due to the creators of the baby, and/or the owner of the penis.

Re:The problem i see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158227)

They actually tell you now that excessive cleaning is the cause of a lot of these infections. My wife and I made the choice not to have our son circumcised, because we think it's a barbaric religious ritual that amounts to child mutilation. We were advised by our doctor just to leave his foreskin alone, and not to worry about it until he's older.

Re:The problem i see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158233)

From the article: "circumcision could reduce the rates of urinary tract infections and penile cancer,"

Re:The problem i see here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158451)

I wonder why it says "could"? ... Oh I know, maybe because they don't have any actual data / research to confirm that statement?

Re:The problem i see here... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158343)

Careful with the personal responsibility thing... That don't fly in today's welfare, where's my health care culture.

US women prefer circumcised penises (0)

slapyslapslap (995769) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158169)

US women greatly prefer circumcised penises over non circumcised penises. That's reason enough for me!

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises (0)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158249)

No, they don't

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises (1)

gnoshi (314933) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158463)

If you're in the situation where they can tell, it isn't likely to make a big difference is it?

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158533)

Most women I know just don't really care. Certainly none that I have had sex with have expressed an interest in there being a foreskin, and some have stated that they prefer it circumcised. I'd say my anecdotal evidence leads me to believe that I'd prefer to be circumcised.

I do think that many women believe that you do need to take more steps to keep things there clean with a foreskin and don't want to deal with the possibility that you are less than assiduous about that. They really truly could give a shit if you have more sensation or not, so that's really not going to be a reason for them. And I would imagine now that body modification is getting pretty common, they're certainly not going to object to it on those grounds.

In the end, women I have come across simply regard penises as something they want, and they understand that they would probably laugh at how weird looking it is if their hormones didn't make them want to suck and/or ride one, circumcised or not.

Re:US women prefer circumcised penises (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158619)

My wife works at a rehabilitation/ nursing home and the women there all agree uncircumcised is gross

Why do they do this in the US? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158191)

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know? As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

Re:Why do they do this in the US? (5, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158293)

I'm not American, and I can't quite understand where does the custom in the US comes from. Is it religious in origin? I know muslims, jews and americans practice it, but that's about it. Does anyone know? As far as I know, it's not common at all on other countries.

Yea, that's how we distinguish ourselves from you unwashed heathens*.


* in before the negative mods - That's called a JOKE, you humorless assholes!

Re:Why do they do this in the US? (5, Informative)

Znork (31774) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158511)

More or less. Several prominent advocates of circumcision, such as John Harvey Kellog, liked the idea that it would reduce masturbation (especially if the pain was remembered!).

The medical benefits are dubious, particularly as there are indications that any reduction in male infection rates are outweighed by increased rates of female infection rates. Either way condoms and HPV vaccinations are far, far, far, far more effective and appropriate.

Next step (0, Flamebait)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158207)

It becomes mandatory. Hey while you're under the knife, let's get rid of our tonsils and appendix. Can you live without a spleen? OUT! That extra kidney... Mine! Let's see, you really don't need ALL of your intestines, or your stomach.. We can cut down obesity that way. Let's cure colon cancer by taking out everybody's colon and leave them with a colostomy bag. All prostates to be removed when you turn 40..

Reminder (3, Funny)

Burning1 (204959) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158219)

Removing the penis completely will provide significant savings in:

- UTI/STD related treatments
- Contraceptive costs
- Pregnancy related expenses

The problem isn't circumcision (5, Insightful)

sackofdonuts (2717491) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158231)

The problem is sex education in this country. How about leaving the foreskin and teaching boys how to take care of themselves and what to avoid?

Re:The problem isn't circumcision (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158601)

I remember my mum teaching me to wash my "winkle*" in the bath, when I was old enough to wash myself. It went along with washing behind my ears, and it no more to do with "sex education" than that.

Only one boy in my class was circumcised. I didn't know, until the first lot of sex education (age 11) when he volunteered the fact (he was the only Jewish boy).

(*Is "winkle" British slang?)

Soap. (1)

csumpi (2258986) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158241)

Teach how to wash it, or have some doctor chop it.

Yeah, I see how genital mutilation is a much easier solution.

Location, location, location (1)

ItsJustAPseudonym (1259172) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158243)

"Perhaps the most powerful evidence in favour of circumcision comes from randomized controlled trials in South Africa, Kenya and Uganda."

Nope...I don't see "USA" in there. I'll pass.

Limerick break! (1)

UglyTool (768385) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158247)

Let's calm down and get a grip.
I'll give all of you a good tip:
It's a boy? Then rejoice
but leave it his choice.
Avoid giving your son the snip.

I call bullshit... (5, Insightful)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158257)

As a man that suffers from sever penile insensitivity, presumably from my circumcision (which became infected due to poor practices at the hospital), I believe it is a useless, barbaric practice, almost akin to clitordectomies. Clitordectomies, by the way, are also known as female circumcisions. Coincidence?
If you want some of the truth about what a circumcision actually does I suggest reading the following:
http://www.norm.org/ [norm.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration [wikipedia.org]

Re:I call bullshit... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158291)

But, you admit that it was because of malpractice rather than the inherent nature of the procedure that is responsible for your condition.

Re:I call bullshit... (5, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158577)

Mod this gentleman UP please people.
I too have damaged genetalia due to a circumcision that I didn't want, had no say in and didn't need, fortunately the damage isn't too severe in my case. (turkey neck)

Please take a look at this, it's not for the squeemish, nor is it work safe.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html [circumstitions.com]
That is a rare occurance just like myself and wbr1, however NONE of them needed to fucking well occur in the first place.

Oh and can I just say, politically correct or not - women do not have any say in this topic of discussion, NONE, NADA, their opinion is utterly worthless on this topic - be it for or against. I've seen too many articles on this topic with facebook or twitter posts by women who think they have a right to comment on it.
The one I saw yesterday which got me fired up by a woman "your son, your decision" ugh.

This practice should be banned.

Cue the creationists (1, Insightful)

Powercntrl (458442) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158273)

Shouldn't the creationists be against altering something that was clearly part of God's Great Design(TM)?

Oh right, most of them actually *support* circumcision. Bunch of hypocrites.

Re:Cue the creationists (0)

tnk1 (899206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158615)

God did, in fact, order the Jews to be circumcised, so circumcision is not going to be against their beliefs either way.

Same old (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158287)

Nice to see that doctors take into account the fact that people lose sensitivity, suffer more from painful intercourse/ED, and not just the healthcare cost. Oh wait...

Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod (5, Informative)

BMOC (2478408) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158297)

I'm forfeiting a mod point for this, sorry to whoever I modded up... The actual abstract of the actual paper backing up this claim (BOLD IS MINE):

ABSTRACT. Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

IOW, no, we're not recommending anything, we're simply saying there are POTENTIAL medical benefits. Well there are potential medical benefits to getting my appendix removed, or my tonsils cut out, it doesn't mean I should be forced to make that decision.

Stupid journalists, we need to seriously trim the fat in that industry and start with these jackasses who misrepresent science for political gain.

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158389)

Mod parent up. I saw this story in the firehose and assumed it wouldn't get through....

SIGH

Re:Bad research reporting is worth forfeiting mod (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158415)

Stupid journalists, we need to seriously trim the fat in that industry and start with these jackasses who misrepresent science for political gain.

May I suggest we trim that fat by using wood chippers?

Cordially invited to Moscow (Putin style) (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158305)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryqrqeeTJek [youtube.com] -- Radical circumcision for radical chaps

"And if you want to become an Islamic radical and are ready to be circumcised, I invite you to Moscow. We are a multi-faith country and we have experts who can do it. And I would advise them to carry out that operation in such a way that nothing would grow in that place again."

Agreed. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158321)

Chopping off a piece of your body is an excellent way to prevent health problems. Now, why limit this to health problems? How about we prevent people from committing crimes by chopping off their hands at birth. I bet we'd have a lot less shoplifters. Worried about accidently pregnancy? A penectomy for all should do it! Worried about peeping toms? I think enucleation is at something to look, if I have the right word.

Seriously, how about waiting until the child is a bit older to see if the boy wants to "look like daddy"? Unless someone has a religious belief, I don't think it's a good idea to be doing this on babies. So what if it's "slighty healthier"? So what if it "reduces the chances of getting HIV"? It's part of someone's body, a part that doesn't grow back.

Flawed studies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158381)

The biased studies that were performed on guys in Africa who couldn't have sex for a while while they were healing, but the control group was still banging away. Then they stop the study when they get the result they want, but the trend was that the two groups were getting very close to each other. If they would have gone for a year, it might have been a lot smaller percent, but it wouldn't have been a good headline. They should also do medical studies in the US/Europe, which doesn't show the same pattern I bet.

Yes, even the doctors are biased because they are making millions for doing this procedure. I want lower healthcare premiums, and don't want to pay for parents to do this. If it is the modern day religious belief that it should be done, then they or the church should foot the bill. Even though it is hypocritical that religion can't cut even a tiny bit of a girl for non-medical reasons, but guys don't have the same equal protection.

And who knows what medical advances will happen in the next 10 years that will cure these diseases? Circumcision is irreversible for the most part. HIV could be cured or controlled in the next decade. HPV has a shot now. These people should be doing better medical research of curing the diseases or promoting condoms which would do a lot more than circumcision ever would.

$313 (1)

Roadmaster (96317) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158393)

"each circumcision that is not performed costs the U.S. health-care system $313.".

At least they're telling you what's the most you should be willing to pay for this. I don't think that the medical "industry" will see a profit from this.

US doctors might... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158441)

US doctors, within the for profit medical services area may back circumcision.

No other doctors in the public medical system backs it though..... Get rid of your stupid for profit medical system and ridiculous statements like this will soon stop.

Wait wait wait (1)

tanujt (1909206) | about a year and a half ago | (#41158455)

Gert van Dijk, an ethicist at the Royal Dutch Medical Association in Utrecht, the Netherlands, thinks that the AAP has underestimated the potential harm of circumcision.

Gert van Dijk....Yes, that could be the name of my next indie band exploring the tenets of post-modernist sexuality.

Support Equal Rights (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158471)

Well, if it's good for guys it must be good for gals too. So we should be cutting off the clitoral hood and labia of all girls by their logic. Get rid of those nasty bits that foster damp wet areas and cause bacteria to grow down there!

Shaved puds identified Jews in Nazi Germany (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158477)

Most Doctors are jews. A way to hide if "holocaust" happens again. This is the ONLY reason circumcision was SO widely done in the USA. Think about it. You can criticize Christian religions, Islamic ones, and others, but not judaism. Why is that? Because jews have money and money controls politicians who pass laws. They are deathly afraid of what happened in Europe happening here. AntiSemitism? No. It's knowing that nobody wants them around especially Europeans (Spain, Poland, and others) and why Israel was stolen from Palestinians. That's why you have that type of "laws" being passed. Why do people shun the jew in europe? Ok, take a read:

THE JEW WORLD ORDER UNMASKED

source http://republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=news.article&articleID=3990 [republicbroadcasting.org]

Posted On: August 2nd, 2012

Source: http://zioncrimefactory.com/ [zioncrimefactory.com]
CLICK HERE to send this article to a friend!
                      Share This!

THE RULE OF the Talmudic Jew in modern times is nearly one of an absolute monarch of a country. The Jews, through their complete domination of world finance and banking â" through their malignant monopoly of the mass media of America, Britain, France, Canada and other Western powers â" through their influential and vast network of subversive âoelobby groupsâ â" through their dominion over the courts and law profession in general â" not to mention their pernicious presence inside the highest levels of government of the most powerful countries â" have thus taken full control of the entire planet, as was foretold in ancient Jewish religious texts.

As the former Malaysian Prime Minister, Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, explained: âoeThe Jews rule this world by proxy, they get others to fight and die for them⦠They have now gained control of the most powerful countries ⦠This tiny community have become a world power.â Dr. Mahathir spoke the truth, and the reality of his words couldnâ(TM)t be more clear; all one has to do is look around you and observe the terrible power of the treacherous Jews. The Jewish-Zionist terrorist leader Zeâ(TM)ev Jabotinsky (founder of the Jewish terror group Irgun Zevai Leumi) proudly proclaimed: âoeThere is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.â (Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935) The fact that the vicious crimes of this disgusting criminalâ(TM)s insidious terrorist organization â" such as the King David Hotel bombing and Deir Yassin Massacre â" are not mentioned in Western history texts or at all covered in High School and University history classes, is a testament to the veracity of his exultant statement.

Jewish power is supremely epitomized by the fact that criticism of Christianity, Islam, or any other major religion is fully permissible in our societies, but criticism of Jews and Judaism, on the other hand, is taboo, off-limits and socially and politically dangerous. As the saying goes, if you want to know where the power lies ask whom you cannot criticize.

Itâ(TM)s quite interesting to note that the researchers of the âoeNew World Orderâ who endeavor to deflect attention away from the Jews â" such as Alex Jones, Jim Marrs, Alan Watt, Mark Dice, etc â" are not silenced or suppressed, but in fact promoted by the Jewish controlled press. These purported critics of the New World Order and Illuminati who employ vague terms like âoeelitesâ/âglobalistsâ/âthe establishmentâ/âthe military industrial complexâ, and who regularly invoke a confusing deluge of elusive entities and kosher poltergeists (everything from Satanists, Occultists, Freemasons, Jesuits, Nazis, Fascists, Knights Templar, WASPs, British Royalists, Reptilians, Space Aliens, etc) are free to promote their theories and ideas on radio, television, the internet and in books, uninhibited. Their radio shows are not being cancelled, their books are not being taken off the shelves or blocked from publication, their videos are not being censored or expunged from video sharing websites, their websites and blogs are not being shut down on a whim, they are not being fined or thrown in prison for âoehate speech.â On the contrary, we can find these kosher clowns being highlighted on mainstream Jewish propaganda television networks, like the History Channel, and making appearances on MSM talk shows, like The View. Critics of Jewish power, Zionism and the Jewish criminal network couldnâ(TM)t even dream of achieving that level of notoriety. I wonder why?

Communism is Jewish, Freemasonry is Jewish -- Gentile communists and freemasons are nothing more than the cat's paw of the International Jewish Money Power.

Freemasons are often talked about by these people, but what they deliberately conceal from their audiences is the fact that the masons are subordinate and beholden to the Jews, which is admitted in the masonsâ(TM) own books. On page 249 of âoeDuncanâ(TM)s Ritual and Monitorâ it states that Masonry is subservient to Judaism, noting that a recipient of the Royal Arch Degree pledges himself âoeFor the good of Masonry, generally, but the Jewish nation in particular.â The undeniable fact that Freemasonry itself is based on the rites and rituals of the Jewish religion and the mysticism of the Jewish Cabala, is also purposefully glossed over by these deceivers.

The Protocols of Zion make clear this intention to use subservient Gentiles (shabbas goyim) as scapegoats,

âoeGENTILE masonry blindly serves as a screen for us and our objects, but the plan of action of our force, even its very abiding-place, remains for the whole people an unknown mystery.â (The Protocols of Zion, 4:2)

Those of us who name Jews as the prime mover behind the New World Order â" which we have dubbed the âoeJew World Orderâ â" are ruthlessly suppressed, censored, harassed, terrorized, arrested, imprisoned, and in some extreme cases even killed. There is no âoeJesuit Internet Defense Leagueâ that goes around trying to censor YouTube videos that are critical of the Jesuit Order and the Vatican; but there is a âoeJewish Internet Defense Forceâ, a predatory gang of scheming Jews who relentlessly go around sabotaging blogs and websites critical of Jews, Israel or Zionism, and who are responsible for the removal of thousands of videos as well as the banishment of thousands of YouTube channels and users of other video sharing websites. The Vatican doesnâ(TM)t have a paid army of internet trolls who roam around popular websites like YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, posting comments glorifying the Vatican and smearing all critics of the Vatican as âoeanti-Catholic bigotsâ. But the Israeli government â" and its vast network of Zionist lobby organizations like the World Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League and Bâ(TM)nai Bâ(TM)rith â" has on its payroll thousands of Jew zealots called âoeHasbaraâ roaming the net spewing pro-Zionist propaganda, attacking anyone critical of anything Jewish, Israeli or Zionist, as an âoeantisemiteâ and âoefascist naziâ. Itâ(TM)s not Catholic Jesuits who are training their pupils to manipulate Wikipedia to favor their causes and ambitions, itâ(TM)s Zionist Jews who are doing that. Doesnâ(TM)t that tell you something? Only criminals attempting to evade exposure and censure would have to resort to such depraved, bottom-feeding behavior.

Look at all of the prominent people over the years whose careers have been ruined simply for expressing an opinion or stating a fact that the Jews donâ(TM)t want the public to hear. For instance, Helen Thomas, a fifty year veteran of the White House Press Corps, was recently pressured to resign after she was recorded on videotape telling the Israeli Jews to âoeget the hell out of Palestine.â Shortly after the video surfaced Organized Jewry went on a rampage and witch-hunt, unleashing a barrage of hate against the honorable Helen Thomas for her brave remarks, even calling on journalism schools and groups to revoke any honors given to her in previous years. Reflecting on the debacle, Thomas told an interviewer, âoeYou canâ(TM)t criticize Israel in this country and survive.â In a speech Thomas further remarked,

âoeWe are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. Thereâ(TM)s no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where their mouth isâ¦Weâ(TM)re being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.â

Then there was the incident involving Rick Sanchez, a veteran CNN news anchor with his own show called âoeRickâ(TM)s Listâ. Sanchez was promptly fired from his position at CNN after he insinuated that the American mass media is controlled by Jews in a radio interview. (âoeRick Sanchez: Jon Stewart A âBigot,â(TM) Jews Run CNN & All Media.â The Huffington Post. 10/1/2010) Why is it that Rick Sanchez â" being a Gentile â" is not permitted to state the obvious fact that Jews own and control the media when a Jewish reporter from the LA Times, Joel Stein, can freely â" without any repercussions â" write an article entitled âoeHow Jewish Is Hollywood?â in which he arrogantly brags about Jewish control of Hollywood, the news media, government and finance, stating:
âoeJews totally run Hollywood. ⦠As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. ⦠I donâ(TM)t care if Americans think weâ(TM)re running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.â

Conservative journalist and writer Joe Sobran, a long-time syndicated columnist for the National Review until he was predictably fired for âoeantisemitism,â eloquently explained the befuddling nature of Jewish power. Sobran opined that if you want to make it in American politics you have to know all about it, but, at the same time, canâ(TM)t ever refer to it openly, for fear of the Jews:

âoeTalking about American politics without mentioning the Jews is a little like talking about the NBA without mentioning the Chicago Bulls. Not that the Jews are all-powerful, let alone all bad. But they are successful, and therefore powerful enough: and their power is unique in being off-limits to normal criticism even when itâ(TM)s highly visible. They themselves behave as if their success were a guilty secret, and they panic, and resort to accusations, as soon as the subject is raised. Jewish control of the major media in the media age makes the enforced silence both paradoxical and paralyzing. Survival in public life requires that you know all about it, but never refer to it. A hypocritical etiquette forces us to pretend that the Jews are powerless victims; and if you donâ(TM)t respect their victimhood, theyâ(TM)ll destroy you. Itâ(TM)s a phenomenal display not of wickedness, really, but of fierce ethnocentrism, a sort of furtive racial superpatriotism.â

In an essay reprinted in the May 27, 1996, issue of the New York Times Ari Shavit, an Israeli columnist, reflected on the Israeli slaughter of more than a hundred Lebanese civilians the month before: âoeWe killed them out of a certain naive hubris. Believing with absolute certitude that now, with the White House, the Senate, and much of the American media in our hands, the lives of others do not count as much as our ownâ¦.â This Israeli simply confirmed what many Americans already knew and had known for decades, which is that the Jewish/Israeli lobby â" not Jesuits, Occultists, Satanists or shape-shifting Reptilians â" control the White House, Congress and the Senate, like a marionette. Well-known political commentator, and former presidential candidate, Pat Buchanan, once declared: âoeCapitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory.â Former US congressman Paul Findley documented the reality of Buchananâ(TM)s statement in a book called, âoeThey Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israelâ(TM)s Lobbyâ. On page 161 of Findleyâ(TM)s book, he quotes Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who, with blunt vexation at the Jewish-Israeli hold on the United States, said:

âoeIâ(TM)ve never seen a President â" I donâ(TM)t care who he is â" stand up to them [the Israelis]. It just boggles the mind. They always get what they want. The Israelis know what is going on all the time. I got to the point where I wasnâ(TM)t writing anything down. If the American people understood what a grip those people have got on our government, they would rise up in arms. Our citizens certainly donâ(TM)t have any idea what goes on.â

British MP, Tom Dalyell, echoed these sentiments when he proclaimed, âoeA Jewish cabal have taken over the government in the United States and formed an unholy alliance with fundamentalist Christians.â Former US congresswoman Cynthia McKinney has come out and blamed the pro-Israel Lobby in America (AIPAC, ADL, AJC, ZOA, etc) for ruining her political career. While in congress McKinney refused to sign the pro-Israel pledge and took a pro-Palestinian stance. Because of this, McKinney said âoewar was declaredâ on her by the Jewish lobby who eventually ousted her from Congress by funding and supporting her political opponents. In 2009 she told an interviewer that âoemore than 99% of Congress work for Pro Zionist Israeli interests.â Former US congressman, Jim Trafficant, was also targeted and then destroyed by the Jewish lobby for not being a groveling pro-Israel stooge, and for helping out a falsely accused so-called âoeNazi war criminalâ named John Demjanjuk who the Jews attempted to crucify for âoewar crimesâ that never happened. (See: Collins, Michael Piper. Target Trafficant. American Free Press, 2005) After serving a seven year prison sentence on trumped-up corruption charges, he fearlessly came out swinging stating in a television interview that,

âoeâ¦Israel has a powerful stranglehold on the American government. They [the Jews] control both members of the House, and the Senate. They have us involved in wars in which we have little or no interest. Our children are coming back in body bags. Our nation is bankrupt over these wars. And if you open your mouth, you get targeted. And if they donâ(TM)t beat you at the poll, theyâ(TM)ll put you in prison [...] Theyâ(TM)re controlling much of our foreign policy. Theyâ(TM)re influencing much of our domestic policy. Wolfowitz as undersecretary of defense manipulated President Bush number two back into Iraq. Theyâ(TM)ve pushed definitely, definitely to try to get Bush before he left to move into Iran. Weâ(TM)re conducting the expansionist policy of Israel and everybodyâ(TM)s afraid to say it. They control much of the media, they control much of the commerce of the country, and they control powerfully both bodies of the Congress. They own the Congress.â

University of Chicago Professor, John Mersheimer, and Harvard academic Stephen Walt, felt the perilous wrath of the Jew lobby. A vicious smear campaign was launched against them after they published a study exposing the insidious influence of Israeli lobby groups â" principally the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee â" entitled, âoeThe Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policyâ. Fox News reporter Carl Cameron confirmed the capability of the Jewish-Israeli lobby to silence and extirpate anyone they donâ(TM)t like. In his censored four part series on Israeli espionage against the United States, Cameron stated, âoeInvestigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ⦠is considered career suicide.â

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations lists on its board of members fifty-one of Americaâ(TM)s most powerful Zionist hate organizations that wield tremendous influence in American political life. Jewish author J.J. Goldberg, in his book âoeJewish Power: Inside the America Jewish Establishmentâ (pp. 38-39), noted that there are approximately 300 national Jewish organizations in the United States with a combined budget estimated in the range of $6 billion â" a sum greater than the gross national product of half the members of the United Nations. (cited in MacDonald, Kevin. The Culture of Critique, Chapter 7) And that doesnâ(TM)t even take into account the influence of individual wealthy Jews, Jewish families and Jewish Wall Street banking houses like Goldman Sachs, who mete out billions of dollars in campaign contributions to both the Democrat and Republican parties. (See: Collins, Michael Piper. The New Babylon: Those Who Reign Supreme. American Free Press, 2009) Henry L. Feingold, writing in his book âoeJewish Power in America: Myth and Realityâ, stated that âoeOver 60 percent of campaign funds collected by the Democratic party and a respectable percentage of Republican campaign funds stem from Jewish sources.â Jews are quite candid about their attempt to manipulate the US political process to their benefit â" the New Yorker reported that at a conference, the Jewish supremacist Haim Saban (an Israeli-American multibillionaire media mogul) outlined several ways in which Jews can be influential in American politics: âoemake donations to political parties, establish think tanks, and control media outlets.â Couple all that with the Jewish death-grip on the mass media and Hollywood, in conjunction with the Jewish stranglehold on world finance and you have total Jewish ethnic domination of America, a virtual slave society reminiscent of the Soviet Union.

This phenomena of Jewish targeting of political opponents is not limited to America, itâ(TM)s also quite apparent in Canada, Europe, Australia, and in pretty much all nations where Jews live. The ravenous Canadian Jewish Congress had a Liberal Party candidate named Leslie Hughes removed by her party for writing a 2003 article suggesting Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11 (not only did Israel have foreknowledge, they did it). Many Canadian patriots such as Ernst Zundel, Paul Fromm, Terry Tremaine, Arthur Topham, Marc Lemire, and others, have been prosecuted by the tyrannical Canadian government â" at the behest of evil Jewish lobby groups like the CJC, Bâ(TM)nai Bâ(TM)rith, Simon Wiesenthal Center, etc â" for their internet writings criticizing Jews, Zionism or Israel.

In 2009 an Australian anti-Zionist activist named Brendon Oâ(TM)Connell was arrested and charged under Australiaâ(TM)s Orwellian âoeracial vilificationâ law after an altercation he had with two Zionist Jews who photographed him and other pro-Palestine activists at a rally without asking permission. For calling the two Zionist spies âoeracist, homicidal maniacsâ and describing Judaism as a âoeracist, homicidal cultâ (statements totally congruent with the facts), the righteous patriot Oâ(TM)Connell was handed down a hefty three year jail sentence! If the Vatican and the Jesuits â" instead of Jews/Israel â" were the object of Oâ(TM)Connellâ(TM)s criticism do you think he would be in prison right now? Of course not.

The brilliant Douglas Reed, Britainâ(TM)s preeminent WWII correspondent for the London Times, went from being a celebrated, revered author, playwright and journalist with an army of fans, to a non-person scorned in the press and whose books publishers wouldnâ(TM)t touch with a fifty foot poll. Why? Because he started writing about the Jewish Question, Zionism, and the long-term Jewish conspiracy to impose a world government on an enslaved humanity. (See: The Controversy of Zion)

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was the once-famous Russian dissident, a survivor of a Soviet Gulag concentration camp who authored several books about the horrific experiences he, and his Russian countrymen, endured during the communist hell of Soviet Russia (See: The Gulag Archipelago I & II). Then he stopped being famous and now he is a non-person (now deceased). It happened because he told truths about the predominant Jewish role in the Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet Regime. (See: 200 Years Together) So the Jews in the media wrote him out of history â" he disappeared quicker than the people that Stalin did not like vanished.

Another strong indication of the menacing Jewish stranglehold on the West is the wicked Stalinist-style State repression of Holocaust Revisionists. In a well-organized censorship campaign, International Jewish Supremacist groups â" principally the World Jewish Congress â" have successfully lobbied over a dozen European governments to criminalize holocaust revisionist research. All around the world holocaust revisionist scholars and ordinary people who dare question any aspect of the farcical holocaustâ dogma have been harassed, vilified, smeared, slandered, fined heavily, jailed, physically assaulted, terrorized, and in one instance murdered. Courageous and esteemed revisionist scholars such as Arthur Butz, Mark Weber, Germar Rudolf, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zundel, Fredrick Toben, Juergen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, David Cole, Ditlieb Felderer, Carlos Porter, and many others, have suffered tremendous hardships because of their brilliant work debunking the holocaustâ myth.

Taking into account these simple observations, we can confidently assert that International Jewry are the cap of the pyramid of world power and influence. Everything else serves as a distraction and convenient smokescreen for this fundamental reality.

Imperium Judaica â" Bolshevism and Zionism As Instruments of Jewish Intrigue

Zionism and Communism are but two arms of the Jewish World Swindle.

Jews have long been in control of the world, and continue to rule it today. This is revealed to us simply by observing the actions and words of the leaders of World Zionism and World Communism, the twin vehicles of global Jewish subversion.

With the advent of Communism in the early 19th century, we saw the world plunge into a brutal chaos of social cataclysm and economic decay. Indeed, the goal of International Communism was never to âoefree the workersâ from capitalist oppression, but rather to further enslave them to a small cadre of self-declared and self-perpetuating elite vanguards who ruled their subjects with an iron fist. From its inception, Communism and Socialism was a Jewish endeavor to usurp the remaining Gentile nations free from Jewish control, plunder their wealth, and enslave and murder the best of their people!

Communismâ(TM)s Talmudic Jewish roots couldnâ(TM)t be more apparent. The Jew Karl Marx, a descendant of a long line of Talmudic rabbis, is widely viewed as the principal progenitor of the ideology of Communism. Less known, however, was Communismâ(TM)s true prophet â" the Jewish supremacist, Talmudist, and racist Zionist Moses Hess, whom Marx called the âoeRed Rabbi.â (See: Avineri, Shlomo. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism. NYU Press, 1987) Hess was Marxâ(TM)s guide and teacher, and converted both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels to Communism. These two sordid snakes â" Marx and Engels â" went on to author âoeThe Communist Manifestoâ, âoeDas Kapitalâ, and other works, which crystallized this wretched brain-trust of sanguinary scoundrels and their grandiose dreams of a one-world global communist dictatorship.

In 1920, Winston Churchill â" who later sold out to the Jews and became their tool â" ominously warned the world of the menacing movement that was Jewish Bolshevism. Writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, page 5, Churchill opined:

âoeThis movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus â" Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empireâ¦

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and an the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.â

Many misinformed patriots have been led to believe Churchillâ(TM)s âoeZionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish Peopleâ article (quoted above) was somehow a courageous anti-Zionist statement â" it was not. In fact, in the concluding paragraph of the article Churchill gave a ringing endorsement of Zionism, encouraging Jews to follow the course of Zionism rather than Bolshevism:

âoeZionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.â

Churchill was, by his own admission, a radical Zionist who â" as Prime Minister of Britain during WWII â" hypocritically went on to collaborate with Bolshevism, establishing a cozy relationship with Josef Stalinâ(TM)s genocidal Soviet Bolshevik Regime. Churchillâ(TM)s abhorrence of Bolshevism disappeared as rapidly as his reservations about International Jewry as soon as it suited his personal ambitions. Even his âoeZionism versus Bolshevismâ article was disingenuous in the sense that he offered the world a Hobsonâ(TM)s choice of âoeZionism or Bolshevismâ, a false dilemma in that both options produced the exact same result: a World Government under Jewish domination as foretold in the Hebrew Old Testament. Churchill knowingly failed to inform his readers that ideologies to Jews are like the many arms of Vishnu. They all emanate from the same place with the same goal: the desire for a New World Order under Jewish rule! Apparent conflicts among Jews are more about tactics than disputes about ultimate goals. Zionism and Communism are but two tentacles of the same Talmudic monster â" cut and fashioned out of the same Jewish cloth!

Historyâ(TM)s most famous critic of Jewry, Adolf Hitler, eloquently explained this Jewish trick in his book, Mein Kampf,

âoeThe Jewâ(TM)s domination in the state seems so assured that now not only can he call himself a Jew again, but he ruthlessly admits his ultimate national and political designs. A section of his race openly owns itself to be a foreign people, yet even here they lie. For while the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the national consciousness of the Jew finds its satisfaction in the creation of a Palestinian state, the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim. It doesnâ(TM)t even enter their heads to build up a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of living there; all they want is a central organization for their international world swindle, endowed with its own sovereign rights and removed from the intervention of other states: a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.â (A. Hitler, English translation by Ralph Manheim, Mein Kampf, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, New York, (1971), pp. 324-325.)

The mischievous and cruel doctrines of Marx and Hess were zealously adopted by the worldâ(TM)s Jews who saw in it an opportunity to crush the Gentiles once and for all. A Jew named Baruch Levy, in a letter to Karl Marx, stated that Communism was â" after all â" merely a way to transfer all the wealth of the world into Jewish hands and so fulfill the messianic vision of the treacherous Talmud:

âoeThe Jewish people as a whole will be its own Messiah. It will attain world dominion by the dissolution of other races, by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy, and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship. In this new world order the Children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property, and everywhere to make use of the resources of the state. Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which is said that when the Messianic time is come the Jews will have all the property of the whole world in their hands.â (Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx, La Revue de Paris, p. 54, June 1, 1928)

Jewish author Bernard Lazare tells us that Karl Marx was indeed a Talmudist:
âoeHe had that clear Talmudic mind which does not falter at the petty difficulties of fact. He was a Talmudist devoted to sociology and applying his native power of exegesis to the criticism of economic theory. He was inspired by that ancient Hebraic materialism, which, rejecting as too distant and doubtful the hope of an Eden after death, never ceased to dream of Paradise realized on earth. But Marx was not merely a logician, he was also a rebel, an agitator, an acrid controversialist, and he derived his gift for sarcasm and invective, as Heine did, from his Jewish ancestry.â (Lazare, Bernard. âoeAntisemitism, Its History and Causesâ, p. 129)

In its article on âoeMessianic Movementsâ, the Encyclopaedia Judaica writes: âoeIn his letters to Leopold Zunz referred many times to the European revolution of 1848 as âthe Messiah.â(TM) Even many Jews who left the faith tended to invest secular liberation movements with a messianic glow.â

The Jewish supremacist rabbi, Harry Waton, confessed that not only is Communism Jewish, but that it is simply a mechanism for Jewish world dominion and the subjugation of all non-Jews â" a fulfillment of the megalomaniacal messianic vision of the Torah and the Talmud. In his 1939 book, âoeA Program for The Jews and An Answer To All Anti-Semites: A Program for Humanityâ, the racist rabbi wrote:

âoeIt is not an accident that Judaism gave birth to Marxism, and it is not an accident that the Jews readily took up Marxism; all this was in perfect accord with the progress of Judaism and the Jews. The Jews should realize that Jehovah no longer dwells in heaven, but he dwells in us right here on earth; we must no longer look up to Jehovah as above us and outside of us, but we must see him right within us,â (p. 148)

âoeSince the Jews are the highest and most cultured people on earth, the Jews have a right to subordinate to themselves the rest of mankind and to be the masters over the whole earth. Now, indeed, this is the historic destiny of the Jews,â (p. 99)

âoeJudaism is communism, internationalism, the universal brotherhood of man, the emancipation of the working class and the human society. It is with these spiritual weapons that the Jews will conquer the world and the human race.â (p. 100)
Peculiar isnâ(TM)t it that the supposed arch anti-capitalist, Karl Marx, never spoke a negative word about the Jewish banking dynasty, the Rothschilds, the richest of the worldâ(TM)s capitalist financiers, war profiteers and exploiters of the working class. This isnâ(TM)t so puzzling when you understand that Marx was working for the Rothschilds all along. (See: Red Symphony) Mikael Bakunin, the prominent anarcho-syndicalist thinker and rival of Karl Marx, assailed Jewish control of the World Revolution, blasting Marx and his phony liberation ideology (Marxism) as a Rothschild-backed con for the Jewish financial oligarchy to undermine, loot and pillage the wealth of Gentile nations. Bakunin said,

âoeHimself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press â" they have taken possession of all the newspapers â" and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of bloodsuckers, a single gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion â" this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild. This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which, speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail â¦.â (Michael Bakunin, Polémique contres les Juifs, 1869)

Benjamin Disraeli, the Jewish Prime Minister of England from 1874-1880, repeatedly warned about the machinations of his trouble-making kinsmen. In his novel, Conigsby, Disraeli made one of his characters say,
âoeI had on my arrival (at St. Petersburg) an interview with the Russian Minister of Finance, Count Canerin; I beheld the son of a Lithuanian Jewâ¦. I had an audience on my arrival at Madrid with the Spanish minister; I beheld one like myself, the son of a Nuovo Christiano, a Jew of Aragon. In consequence of that transpired at Madrid I went straight to consult the President of the French Council; I beheld the son of a French Jewâ¦. We fixed on Prussiaâ¦. Count Arnim entered the cabinet, and I beheld a Prussian Jew. So you see, my dear Coningsby, that the world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.âoe

Then, four years after the Jewish-engineered outbreaks of 1848, Disraeli returned to the subject in his book Lord George Bentinck, stating,
âoeThe influence of the Jews may be traced in the last outbreak of the destructive principle in Europe. An insurrection takes place against tradition and aristocracy, against religion and property⦠The natural equality of men and the abrogation of property are proclaimed by the secret societies who form provisional governments and men of Jewish race are found at the head of every one of them.âoe

Chaim Weizmann, the 20th centuryâ(TM)s preeminent Zionist influence-peddler, architect of the âBalfour Declarationâ(TM), and first president of Israel, is quoted as saying: âoeA beneficent protection which God has instituted in the life of the Jew is that He has dispersed him all over the world.â (JEWISH GUARDIAN, Oct. 8, 1920.) Now compare this with the last clause of Protocol No. 11, of The Protocols of Zion: âoeGod has granted to us, His Chosen People, the gift of dispersion, and from this, which appears to all eyes to be our weakness, has come forth all our strength, which has now brought us to the threshold of sovereignty over all the world.â The remarkable similarity between Weizmannâ(TM)s pronouncement and the passage from the Protocols proves that the Jewish Learned Elders exist, Weizmann chief among them.

This Hidden Hand of Jews was subtly identified by Walter Rathenau (1867-1922), a German-Jewish industrialist, writer, and statesman who served as Germanyâ(TM)s Foreign Minister during the Weimar Republic. Writing in the Wiener Freie Presse, December 24, 1912, he said: âoeThree hundred men, each of whom knows all the others, govern the fate of the European continent, and they elect their successors from their entourage.â This reality was confirmed by Jean Izoulet, a Jewish professor at the College of France and a member of the Jewish-Masonic secret society Alliance Israelite Universelle. Writing in his 1926 book âoeParis Capital of Religionsâ, Izoulet said: âoeI certainly do not want to relinquish their Magisterium temporal the three hundred bankers who, at the moment, dominate the world.â

At the Zionist congress held in Basel in 1898, Dr. Mandelstam, a professor at the University of Kiev, proclaimed: âoeThe Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with the other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope of world empire.â (Chamberlain, Houston Stewart. âoeFoundations of the Nineteenth Centuryâoe, p. 335) The Talmudic Jew David Wolffsohn was Theordore Herzlâ(TM)s successor as leader of World Zionism and chairman of the World Zionist Organization (WZO). He presided over the Zionist Congress at the Hague in 1907 and gave the opening and closing speeches. The New York Times tells us that in his closing address Wolffsohn pleaded for more unity among the Jews and said that Jewry eventually must conquer the world! (âoeZIONIST LEADER DIES. â" David Wolfsohn Was Once Chairman of International Committee.â The New York Times. 17 Sept. 1914.)

In 1922 at a Zionist conference in Carlsbad, California, Zionist leader Nahum Sokolow boastfully gloated that the League of Nations (predecessor of the United Nations) was a Jewish construct and tool, and that Jerusalem will one day be capital of the world upon the realization of their dark plans:

âoeThe League of Nations is a Jewish idea, and Jerusalem some day will become the capital of the worldâ(TM)s peace. We Jews throughout the world will make the Leagueâ(TM)s struggle our own and will not rest until there is ultimate victory.â (âoeSAYS JEWS OF WORLD WILL BACK LEAGUE â" Dr. Sokolow Tells Zionist Congress Jerusalem Will Be International Peace Capital.â The New York Times. 28 Aug. 1922.)

Theodore Newman Kaufman was an American Jew who published a book in 1941 calling for the extermination of the entire German race and nation in a âoefinal solutionâ of sterilization. (See: Kaufman, Theodore N. Germany Must Perish! Newark, NJ: Argyle Press, 1941) In the same year of his bookâ(TM)s publication, this devilish Jew gave an interview to The Canadian Jewish Chronicle in which he fervently articulated his desire not only for the annihilation of all German Gentiles, but also for Jewish World Government, stating:

âoeI believe that the Jews have a mission in life. They must see to it that the nations of the world get together in one vast confederation. âUnion Nowâ(TM) is the beginning of this. Slowly but surely the world will develop into paradise. We will have perpetual peace. And the Jews will do the most to bring about this confederation, because they have the most to gain.â

Kaufmanâ(TM)s call for âoeUnion Nowâ was strangely similar to a proclamation made by Adolph Crémieux, a prominent French-Jewish lawyer and statesman who founded the Jewish Masonic order âoeAlliance Israelite Universelleâ in Paris in 1860. At an Alliance meeting Crémieux declared in true âProtocolsâ(TM) style: âoeThe Alliance is not limited to our cult; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavor boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of âoeUnion and Progressâ: such is the motto of humanity.â Crémieux and his secretive Jewish order were named as the prime conspirators in the formulation of The Protocols of Zion, in an enlightening essay entitled, âoeThe Protocols of the Ruffle Crested Kikes of Zionâ.

In 1940, Arthur Greenwood â" the Deputy Leader of the British Labour Party and member of the British War Cabinet â" made a vocal pledge to American Jewry that upon the defeat of the Axis Powers in WWII he would do his utmost to help realize the formation of a âoeNew World Orderâ in the world, led and dominated by the Jews. The groveling Zionist stooge proclaimed,

âoeWhen we have achieved victory, as we assuredly shall, the nations will have the opportunity of establishing a new world order ⦠In such a world it is our confident hope that the conscience of civilized humanity would demand that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.â

He added,

âoeIn the rebuilding of civilized society after the war, there should and will be a real opportunity for Jews everywhere to make a distinctive and constructive contribution.â (See this facsimile of the New York Times article)

In 1946, the US government put to Stalin a proposal for World Government, penned by two Globalist Jews â" Bernard Baruch and David Lilienthal. Baruch was a wealthy Jewish Wall Street tycoon, and influential adviser to five American presidents. In World War I he was Woodrow Wilsonâ(TM)s chief adviser on national defense and was appointed chairman of the War Industries Board (1918-1919), thus bringing the American war machine under the heel of Jewish financiers. Baruch, and a contingent of his kinsmen, helped frame the economic provisions of the Versailles Treaty of 1919 which carved Germany into pieces after WWI. In his address to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission on the 14th of June, 1946, Baruch made the following âoeProtocolistâ, One-Worldist pronouncement:

âoeBehind the black portent of the new atomic age lies a hope which, seized upon with faith, can work out salvation ⦠Let us not deceive ourselves: we must elect world peace or world destruction. ⦠Peace is never long preserved by weight of metal or by an armament race. Peace can be made tranquil and secure only by understanding and agreement fortified by sanctions. We must embrace international cooperation or international disintegration.â

Baruch also predicted the âoeCold Warâ between the US and the USSR. In 1948, during a speech before the Senateâ(TM)s Special Committee Investigating the National Defense Program, he said,

âoeAlthough the shooting war is over, we are in the midst of a cold war which is getting warmer.â

Fellow Zionist kingpin, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, peculiarly predicted the ascendancy of Woodrow Wilson to the presidency, and in his autobiography, âoeChallenging Years,â (p. 161) boasted âoethat an immensely influential hidden powerâ â" with which he was intimately acquainted â" âoehad chosen Wilson as a major pawn in their political gameâ even before the president of Princeton University had entered into politics. Wise would go on to become one of Wilsonâ(TM)s chief advisers who was instrumental in persuading Wilson to support the âBalfour Declarationâ(TM). Wilson, of course, was the âoepoodle on a stringâ of the conniving Protocolist Jews, having signed into law two of the most important planks of their Communist Manifesto â" Plank #2, âoeA heavy progressive or graduated income tax,â and Plank #5, the creation of a central bank, âoewith exclusive monopoly.â

Perhaps in a fit of rebelliousness against his masters, Woodrow Wilson made this ominous remark about the secret forces controlling the United States government from behind the scenes,

âoeâ¦we have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world â" no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.â (Woodrow, Wilson. New Freedom: a Call for the Emancipation of the Generous Energies of a People. [S.l.]: Indypublish Com, 2007, p. 201)

Further clarification and confirmation of this ongoing Jewish World Government project was provided by Israelâ(TM)s first prime minister â" the Jewish supremacist, Talmudist, Zionist terrorist and Bolshevist internationalist â" David Ben-Gurion. In 1962, Ben-Gurion predicted the end of the Cold War in the late 1980s, and went on to express a burning desire for world governance, led by the Jewish nation:

âoeThe image of the world in 1987 as traced in my imagination: the Cold War will be a thing of the past. Internal pressure of the constantly growing intelligensia in Russia for more freedom and the pressure of the masses for raising their living standards may lead to a gradual democratization of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the increasing influence of the workers and farmers, and rising political importance of men of science, may transform the United States into a welfare state with a planned economy. Western and Eastern Europe will become a federation of autonomous states having a Socialist and democratic regime. With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the scene of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.â (Gurion, David Ben & Duchovny, Amram. David Ben-Gurion, In His Own Words. Fleet Press Corp., 1969, p. 116; also quoted in Look Magazine, January 16, 1962, p. 20)

Ben-Gurion reiterated his ostentatious dreams of a Jewish Utopia when he said: âoeJerusalem is not the capital of Israel and world Jewry, it aspires to become the spiritual center of the world.â The Israeli prime minister was a chauvinistic Jewish supremacist who stated his rotten aims openly. He spilled the blood of tens of thousands of Palestinians and was responsible for the uprooting and beheading of their nation. He, along with his clique of ferocious Zionist bandits, gangsters and thugs, masterminded âoethe Nakbaâ which has been described as âoethe mass deportation of a million Palestinians from their cities and villages, massacres of civilians, and the razing to the ground of hundreds of Palestinian villages.â

Flaunting his Jewish pride and arrogantly mocking his victims by falsely claiming to be a victim, Ben-Gurion sanctimoniously said:

âoeWe would not have taken on this war merely for the purpose of enjoying this tiny state. There have been only two great people: the Greeks and the Jews. Perhaps the Greeks were even greater than the Jews, but now I can see no sign of that old greatness in the modern Greeks. Maybe when the present process is finished we too will degenerate, but I see no sign of degeneration at present. [...] Suffering makes a people greater, and we have suffered much. We had a message to give the world, but we were overwhelmed, and the message was cut off in the middle. In time there will be millions of us â" becoming stronger and stronger â" and we will complete the message. [...] Our policy must be the unity of the human race. The world is divided into two blocs. We consider that the United Nationsâ(TM) ideal is a Jewish ideal.âoe

Ben-Gurion believed Jews to be living gods on earth, superior to Gentiles in every way, stating:

âoeMy concept of the messianic ideal and vision is not a metaphysical one but a socio-cultural-moral one ⦠I believe in our moral and intellectual superiority, in our capacity to serve as a model for the redemption of the human race. This belief of mine is based on my knowledge of the Jewish people, not some mystical faith; the glory of the divine presence is within us, in our hearts, and not outside of us.â (Hertzberg, Arthur. The Zionist State. Jewish Publication Society, 1997, p. 94)

Ben-Gurionâ(TM)s âoeprophesyâ of an earthly Jewish kingdom ruled from Jerusalem was similarly expressed by the Temple Mount Faithful organization newsletter (2000), which says:

âoeThe real âoeUnited Nations Organizationâ will be the Kingdom of G-d which will soon be established in Jerusalem, based on the holy laws of G-d. The Temple will again be the heart, soul and focus of Israel and the nations. Mashiach ben David will come and will be the king of Israel and the world. He will come to Jerusalem and rule from there and establish the Kingdom of G-d over all the world. Jerusalem instead of New York will be the center of the this godly âoeUnited Nations Organizationâ and a new era of justice, spiritual holiness, a real law based on the word of G-d in the Torah and a real peace will open and will be established in Jerusalem exactly as Isaiah prophesied: âoeThe word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the Lordâ(TM)s house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. And many people shall go and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; for from Zion shall go forth Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall decide for many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, nor shall they learn war any more. O house of Jacob, come, and let us walk in the light of the Lord.â (Isaiah 2:1-5)â

As demonstrated by the Jewish supremacist group âoeTemple Mount Faithful,â the ancient Jewish plan for world ownership is prophesied in the Jewish Old Testament book of Isaiah. This book, among others, exemplifies the Jewish supremacist mentality. For example, in Isaiah 60:16, it says: âoeThou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.â Isaiah 61:5 reiterates this concept of Gentile servitude to the Jews, stating: âoeAnd strangers [non-Jews] shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien [non-Jews] shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.â Isaiah 60:5 and Isaiah 61:6 prophesied that the Jews will come to possess all the wealth of the world: âoethe wealth of the nations [the Goyim] shall come unto thee [the Jews]. ⦠You will feed on the wealth of nations, and in their riches you will boast.â

When Ben-Gurion referred to âoeeverybodyâ in his Protocolist Prophecy he was most likely only referring to Jews, since the Zohar states: âoeâ(TM)living soulâ(TM) refers to Israel, who have holy living souls from above, and âoecattle and creeping thing and beast of the earthâ to the other peoples who are not âliving soulâ(TM).â

This view is corroborated by the crazed ravings of many prominent Jewish rabbis, including many of Judaismâ(TM)s most revered sages. Take for instance, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812), the founder of the extremist Jewish sect âoeChabadâ who cursed Gentiles, claiming we possess evil souls: âoeGentile souls are of a completely different and inferior order. They are totally evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever⦠All Jews are innately good, all Gentiles are innately evil.â (quoted in Foxbrunner, A. Roman. Habad: the Hasidism of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady. University of Alabama Press, 1992, p. 108)

Rabbi Kook the Elder, the revered father of the messianic tendency of Jewish fundamentalism, said, âoeThe difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jewsâ"all of them in all different levelsâ"is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.â (quoted in Shahak, Israel & Mezvinsky, Norman. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto Press, 1999, p. 176)

The late, highly revered Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the âoeLubavitcher Rebbeâ who headed the Chabad movement and wielded great influence in Israel as well as in the U.S., explained that, âoeThe difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: âLet us differentiate.â(TM) Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of âlet us differentiateâ(TM) between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the worldâ¦A non-Jewâ(TM)s entire reality is only vanity. It is written, âAnd the strangers shall guard and feed your flocksâ(TM) (Isaiah 61:5). The entire creation [of a non-Jew] exists only for the sake of the Jewsâ¦â (Ibid., p. 59)

An immigrant to Israel from the U.S., Rabbi Ginsburgh speaks freely of his belief in the Jewsâ(TM) genetic-based, spiritual superiority over non-Jews: âoeIf you saw two people drowning, a Jew and a non-Jew, the Torah says you save the Jewish life first. ⦠If every simple cell in a Jewish body entails divinity, is a part of God, then every strand of DNA is part of God. Therefore, something is special about Jewish DNAâ¦If a Jew needs a liver, can you take the liver of an innocent non-Jew passing by to save him? The Torah would probably permit that. Jewish life has an infinite value.â (Ibid., p. 62)

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the head of Shasâ(TM)s Council of Torah Sages, declared that Gentiles exist solely to serve the Jews as slaves. According to the rabbi: âoeGoyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world â" only to serve the People of Israel.â (Mandel, Jonah. âoeYosef: Gentiles Exist Only To Serve Jews.â The Jerusalem Post. 10/18/2010) And these are just the statements Jews have made aloud. Just imagine how they talk when they know Gentiles arenâ(TM)t listening.

Another cardinal proof of the Zionist World Conspiracy was the incredible foresight displayed by Zionist leader Simon Maximilian Südfeld (alias Max Nordau), Theodore Herzlâ(TM)s close confidant who convinced him to organize the first Zionist conference in Basel, Switzerland in 1897. At the sixth Zionist Congress in 1903 â" eleven years before World War I commenced and forty-five years before Israel was established â" Nordau spoke of a coming âoeWorld Warâ resulting in the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, which England would help to procure for them:

âoeLet me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward: Herzl, the Zionist Congress, the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where, with the help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be created.â (quoted in Rosenthal, Litman. âoeA Prophet Speaksâ, American Jewish News, New York, Vol. 4, No. 2, September 19, 1919. p. 464; also quoted in Stevens, Richard P. Zionism and Palestine Before the Mandate. Institute for Palestine Studies, 1972, p. 153)

Strange and incredible â" is it not? â" that a leading Zionist Jew was able to predict the course of events of the next several decades. It appears Max Nordau was not the only Jew with an uncanny gift of foresight. Leading communist ideologue and co-author of âoeThe Communist Manifestoâ, crypto-Jew Friedrich Engels, made it clear that he and his fellow communist comrades were comfortable with human sacrifices amounting to the loss of tens of millions of lives, in order to pave the way for revolution and a global communist imperium. In 1887, Engels somehow knew a âoeWorld Warâ was on the horizon and would soon arrive on the shores of Europe, laying waste to Europeâ(TM)s empires and thus leaving the continent vulnerable to communist revolution, upheaval and subversion:

âoeNo other war is now possible for Prussia-Germany than a world war, and indeed a world war of hitherto unimagined sweep and violence. Eight to ten millions soldiers will mutually kill each other off and in the process devour Europe barer than any swarm of locusts ever did. The desolation of the Thirty Years War compressed in three or four years and spread over the entire continent: famine, plague, general savagery, taking possession both of the armies and of the masses of the people, as a result of universal want; hopeless demoralization of our complex institutions of trade industry and credit, ending in universal bankruptcy; collapse of the old states and their traditional statecraft, so that crowns will roll over the pavements by the dozens and no one to be found to pick them up; absolute impossibility of foreseeing where this will end, or who will emerge victor from the general struggle. Only one result is absolutely sure: general exhaustion and the creation of the conditions for the final victory of the working class.â (quoted in Wolfe, David Bertram. Marxism, One Hundred Years In The Life of a Doctrine. Dial Press, (1965), p. 67)

Another who predicted the impending doom of a grand European conflict was Jan Gotlib Bloch, a Polish crypto-Jew, banker/financier, Zionist activist, âoecampaigner against Russian antisemitismâoe, and acquaintance of Theodore Herzl. In 1899, Bloch published a book about military warfare titled, âoeIs War Now Possible?â, within which he envisioned a âoelong warâ, a âoegreat war of entrenchmentsâ, which would involve some ten million men. Bloch asserted that economic factors would be âoethe dominant and decisive element in the matterâ and that the future of war was not fighting but famine, resulting in the bankruptcy of nations and the break-up of social organization of societies. (Ferguson, Niall. âoeThe Pity of Warâ, p. 9)

It is clear that International Jews foresaw the First World War. Did they do nothing but foresee it? The facts do not stop at foresight, but run on to provocation. Perhaps prominent Zionist Jews and Communist Jews were cognizant of the eventual outbreak of a World War because they strove to bring it to fruition utilizing their unmatched money, media and political clout?

The Protocols of Zion gives us insight into this question,

âoeWe must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by war with the neighbors of that country which dares to oppose us: but if these neighbors should also venture to stand collectively together against us, then we must offer resistance by a universal war.â (The Protocols of Zion, 7:3)

Zionist Jew kingpin, Chaim Weizmann, admitted as much in a letter to Winston Churchill. Historian David Irving documented Weizmannâ(TM)s venture to persuade Churchill to help the Zionists create a Jewish Fighting Force â" an army of Jewish terrorists to be used as a battering ram to forcefully overtake Palestine and wantonly genocide the Arabs living there â" in exchange for the Jewsâ(TM) dragging America into WWII on Englandâ(TM)s side. The arrogant and conceited Jew, Weizmann, couldnâ(TM)t help but boast about how his fellow Jews âoedid it in the last war and are keen to do it againâ:

âoeOn September 10, 1941 Weizmann therefore wrote an outspoken letter to the prime minister in which he recalled how the Jews of the United States had pulled their country into war before; he promised that they could do it again â" provided that Britain toed the line over Palestine. Two years had passed since the Jewish Agency had offered the support of the Jews throughout the world â" the Jewish âdeclaration of warâ(TM) on Germany; a whole year had passed, he added, since the P.M. had personally approved his offer to recruit Jews in Palestine for service in the Middle East or elsewhere. For two years the Agency had met only humiliation. Ten thousand Palestinian Jews had fought in Libya, Abyssinia, Greece, Crete, and Syria, he claimed, but this was never mentioned.

âTortured by Hitler as no nation has ever been in modern times,â(TM) Weizmann continued, âand advertised by him as his foremost enemy, we are refused by those who fight him the chance of seeing our name and our flag appear among those arrayed against him.â(TM) Artfully associating anti-Zionists with the other enemies populating Churchillâ(TM)s mind, Weizmann assured him that he knew this was not of his doing â" it was the work of those responsible for Munich and the 1939 White Paper on Palestine. âWe were sacrificed, in order to win over the Mufti of Jerusalem and his friends who were serving Hitler in the Middle East.â(TM)

âoeThen Weizmann came to his real sales-pitch: âThere is only one big ethnic group [in the USA] which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of âoeall-out aidâ for her: the five million Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor [of New York State] Lehmann, Justice [Felix] Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies.â(TM) British statesmen, he reminded Churchill, had often acknowledged that it was these Jews who had brought the United States into the war in 1917. âThey are keen to do it â" and may do it â" again.â(TM) All that he and the Jews of the United States were asking for, therefore, was the formation now of a Jewish Fighting Force.â (Irving, David. Churchillâ(TM)s War: Triumph in Adversity Vol. 2. Focal Point Publications, 2001, Pp. 76-77; also see this facsimile of Weizmannâ(TM)s letter to Churchill)

The âoegodfather of Zionismâ, Theodore Herzl, was not shy about admitting that the Jews do indeed posses

$313 is a small price to pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158569)

Hmm,

As one of the folks who has not been graced with this particular mutilation, I feel that $313 is a small price to pay to keep everything down there intact.

What if we turn it around and propose the following to parents of new boys:
"Oy. My friend Guido is planning to pay a visit to your darling new boy. For the mere fee of $313, I'll take his scalpel away. We wouldn't want anything... unfortunate to happen to the cute little guys 21st digit, now would we?"

The AAP is now a disgrace (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41158571)

The AAP will be the laughing stock among the international community; this new statement is way out of line with statements from other modern nations with advanced medical systems. The AAP should withdraw this statement immediately.

The foreskin is an important part of male anatomy, and circumcision has serious negative consequences for not only the man, but his female partner as well. Men who were circumcised at birth have never known what a foreskin is like and don't know what they are missing.

The foreskin is erogenous tissue, containing thousands of erogenous fine-touch nerve endings. The most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the penis are removed by circumcision. These color-coded diagrams show the areas of sensitivity for both circumcised and intact anatomy:
http://www.circumstitions.com/Sexuality.html#sorrells

The boy is the one who should be able to choose what happens to his body once he is an adult. Bodily integrity is a fundamental human right. Clearly the AAP doesn't understand that.

This is an excellent video narrated by Dr. Dean Edell, a pediatrician:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_bEBAdhjGg

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...